Robbie the Pict goes on Camera to reverse speeding judgements

The incontrovertible,evergreen Robbie the Pict after winning his argument with the Skye bridge Tolls. Moves on to tackle what he calls an injustice regarding speed cameras..ED

Hi Camera Fans,
Attached is the article which ws featured in only some
editions of the Sunday Post on 13 July. It seemed to get a tug after only
a couple of the nine editions the Post publishes. (It goes so far round the
planet that they start about 5pm on the Saturday night!)
Anyway we have the means to get it where others dare
not reach. Please circulate freely.
With best regards,
Robbie.

Robbie puts brakes
on speed cameras - By Robert Wight in Sunday Post 13 July 2008

MILLIONS of motorists have been convicted of speeding on dodgy
evidence from illegal cameras, claims a Scots roads campaigner.

Community lawyer Robbie the Pict, who helped bring an end to tolls on
the Skye Bridge, has identified a legal glitch he says makes evidence from all
speed cameras - fixed and hand-held - inadmissible in court.

Known as the ‘Irn Bru Defence' because of its Scottish roots, the
argument is being used by lawyers in several test cases on both sides of the
Border.

If successful, it could lead to more than 10 million motorists convicted
since 1992 claiming back around £600 million in fines.

"This has been called the Irn Bru Defence because it was made in Scotland and promises to
throw a girder - not just a spanner - into the legal works," said Robbie.

Compensation

"Millions of drivers have had monies unlawfully extorted from them
because of convictions based on images from these illegal cameras. Compensation
could take the Government's potential bill to way above what it would cost just
to pay back the fines."

Robbie argues that prior to 1992, radar-type speed measuring devices
needed only the approval of the Home Office. But from that July, the Road
Traffic Act (1991) required all

new makes and
models of speed camera to be specified in a Parliamentary Order.

This is supposed to be done using a Statutory Instrument (SI) - best
described as a "mini-Act of Parliament" - and a new SI must be issued
for each individual type of camera.

Robbie reckons that since 1992 over 40 different devices have been
approved by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, but
without the say-so of Parliament.

Barrister

In June, barrister Michael Shrimpton used Robbie's argument to convince
magistrates in Nuneaton to throw out a case. He is acting
in around 10 upcoming cases and in Scotland the defence is
currently being used in five more cases.

"Any driver who receives a letter notifying them of a £60 penalty
and three points on their licence on the basis of video-graphic evidence should
write to the relevant Chief Constable to ask which Parliamentary Order covers
the device," explained Robbie.

"Or write a caveat on the back of your cheque stating it's only
payable subject to the existence of the Order for the device."

A Home Office spokeswoman said, "All generic descriptions of speed
measuring device producing records acceptable to the courts have been
prescribed in the proper manner."